The House of Representatives has passed for second reading a bill seeking to prohibit landlords and estate agents in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) from compelling tenants to pay more than 12 months’ rent in advance, with proposed fines of up to ₦20 million for corporate offenders.
The proposed legislation also seeks to regulate agency fees, protect tenants against unlawful eviction and intimidation, and establish a regulatory authority to oversee rental transactions in Abuja.
The bill, sponsored by the member representing Enugu East/Isi-Uzo Federal Constituency of Enugu State, Paul Nnamchi, and co-sponsored by Ahmed Yusuf Doro, was considered during Wednesday’s plenary on November 4, 2026.
Titled “A Bill for an Act to Regulate Advance Rental Payments, Prohibit Compulsory Multiple-Year Rent Demands, Establish the Federal Capital Territory Rent Regulation and Tenants’ Protection Authority, Provide Remedies for Unlawful Rental Practices, and for Related Matters,” the proposal seeks to address what its sponsors described as exploitative practices in the FCT rental market.
Under Section 4 of the proposed legislation, landlords, estate agents, property managers and other persons acting on behalf of landlords would be prohibited from demanding, receiving or compelling tenants to pay more than 12 months’ rent in advance.
However, the bill makes provision for tenants who voluntarily elect to pay rent beyond 12 months, provided the arrangement is not imposed by the landlord and is documented in writing.
The legislation also seeks to prevent landlords and property agents from circumventing the restriction through compulsory additional charges or separate agreements.
Individuals who violate the proposed advance-rent provisions could face fines ranging from ₦500,000 to ₦5 million, while corporate offenders could be fined between ₦5 million and ₦20 million.
The bill would apply to both residential and commercial tenancies within the FCT and proposes that the regulatory authority become operational within six months of the commencement of the law.
Leading the debate, Nnamchi expressed concern that excessive advance-rent demands had placed considerable financial pressure on residents, affecting household savings, small businesses and the ability of workers to relocate for employment opportunities.
He explained that the bill was designed to establish a fairer and more accountable rental system through the regulation of advance payments, reasonable limits on agency fees, a unified platform for identifying housing agents and protection against coercive rental practices.
“Mr Speaker, this legislation is not intended to undermine property rights or discourage investment. Rather, it recognises that legitimate commercial interests must coexist with public protection. Landlords deserve reasonable returns.
“Agents deserve professional recognition. And tenants deserve fairness and protection from exploitation,” Nnamchi said.
He maintained that a properly regulated rental market would promote transparency, certainty and accountability while protecting consumers and improving confidence in the housing sector.
“The responsibility of legislation is not merely to protect economic transactions, but also to ensure that those transactions do not become instruments of undue hardship or exploitation,” he added.
The lawmaker urged his colleagues to support the bill and allow it to proceed to the relevant committee for detailed consideration and stakeholder engagement.
“Ultimately, access to decent accommodation should not be determined by one’s ability to make extraordinary advance payments. Fairness, accountability and the protection of legitimate interests must remain the guiding principle of our rental markets. Mr Speaker, I so move,” he stated.
The proposal, however, generated divergent views among lawmakers, with some questioning whether restrictions on advance-rent payments could interfere with property rights and freedom of trade, while others argued that government intervention was necessary to protect tenants from exploitation.
Contributing to the debate, Idris Zacharias, representing Ida/Igalamela-Ibaji/Ofu Federal Constituency of Kogi State, described the bill as important but urged the House to consider broader issues affecting land administration and housing in the FCT.
He also requested the involvement of the House Committee on the FCT and Area Councils in the legislative consideration of the proposal.
Similarly, Chinedu Ogah, representing Ikwo/Ezza South Federal Constituency of Ebonyi State, supported the bill, arguing that high rental costs and agency fees were making it increasingly difficult for businesses to establish offices in Abuja.
Ogah cited the cost of renting a three-bedroom office in Wuse, which he said ranged between ₦25 million and ₦30 million annually, with additional agency fees increasing the financial burden.
He maintained that clearer rules governing rental transactions would encourage investment and improve the business environment.
Jafaru Gambo, representing Bogoro/Dass/Tafawa Balewa Federal Constituency of Bauchi State, also supported the proposal but recommended replacing the word “prohibit” in the bill’s title with “regulate.”
He argued that the legislation should have a broader application beyond the Federal Capital Territory.
“The bill should have nationwide coverage, not just the FCT. Mr Speaker, this is my amendment to the bill,” Gambo said.
However, Ibe Osonwa, representing Arochukwu/Ohafia Federal Constituency of Abia State, cautioned against imposing a blanket prohibition on multiple-year rent payments.
Although he supported regulation, Osonwa argued that the proposed restrictions could interfere with legitimate commercial arrangements between landlords and tenants.
“This is a free market situation. By the free market economy, are we now going to, for every good or service that is sold outside, we now start to tell people how to trade on their own businesses?” he asked.
He maintained that some circumstances could justify rental arrangements covering several years and urged the House to consider regulation under clearly defined conditions rather than an outright prohibition.
Similarly, Joseph Bagudu of Kaduna State called for the replacement of “prohibition” with “regulation,” arguing that landlords needed to recover their investments, particularly in view of rising building material costs.
Bagudu also disputed claims that agency fees could reach 25 per cent, maintaining that the prevailing rate was generally around 10 per cent.
On his part, Ayodeji Alao-Akala, representing Ogbomoso North/South/Orire Federal Constituency of Oyo State, supported the bill and explained that its provisions were aimed at compulsory multiple-year rent demands rather than preventing landlords from reviewing rental charges.
He expressed concern about the financial burden imposed on young couples and recent graduates who were required to pay two years’ rent before securing accommodation.
“As a youth, when a corps member comes out of service now and is being asked to pay two years, where will this insurance money come from?” he asked.
Alao-Akala maintained that the law could accommodate monthly, six-monthly and annual rental payments while preventing landlords from compelling tenants to pay several years’ rent in advance.
However, Patrick Umoh of Akwa Ibom State warned that the bill could raise constitutional concerns relating to property rights and freedom of trade.
He urged the House to step down the proposal for further consultation and a review of existing tenancy laws applicable in the Federal Capital Territory.
The Deputy Speaker, Benjamin Kalu, who presided over the debate, acknowledged the constitutional concerns raised by members.
During the deliberations, reference was made to Section 44(2)(c) of the 1999 Constitution, which provides for exceptions relating to laws governing leases and tenancies.
Kalu, however, argued that the proposed legislation did not violate any provision of the Constitution.
Also contributing, Wale Raji, representing Epe Federal Constituency of Lagos State, maintained that previous attempts to regulate rents had failed to adequately address the housing problem.
He argued that the widening gap between housing demand and available accommodation remained a major factor driving rental costs.
According to him, the Federal Government must pay greater attention to social housing and measures aimed at increasing housing supply rather than relying solely on rent regulation.
Sunday Umeha, an All Progressives Congress lawmaker from Enugu State, disagreed with the constitutional objections raised against the bill.
He maintained that the proposal was consistent with the constitutional responsibility of the legislature to promote the welfare and good governance of Nigerians.
“The purpose of this House is to make laws for the welfare and good governance of the Nigerian people,” he said.
“The bill is not anti-investment. The bill is not against even the landlords or those making investment in the real estate environment or industry. This bill is of good use to both the landlords and the tenants.”
Umeha urged lawmakers to allow the bill to proceed to the next legislative stage, where its provisions could be examined and amended if necessary.
He argued that the legislation would promote order in the rental market while protecting citizens against exploitative practices.
Minority Leader Frederick Agbedi also supported the proposal, expressing concern that the rising cost of accommodation in Abuja was forcing residents into overcrowded and unsuitable living conditions in satellite towns and surrounding suburbs.
“I adopt the submissions of Honourable Umeha entirely as mine. A free market economy does not assume that everything has to be free. The way rent is being increased in FCT, a lot of people have moved to the suburbs where living conditions are pathetic. This bill is intended to cure some of these excesses. That you built a house at ₦1m today does not mean you must rent it out at ₦100m today,” Agbedi said.
He maintained that the proposal was intended to address excesses in the rental market without discouraging legitimate property investment.
House Leader, Professor Julius Ihonvbere, equally backed the legislation, citing the challenges residents face in securing accommodation and concerns over the activities of unregistered estate agents.
“I think this is a very important bill. And I want to thank Professor Nnamchi for thinking about it,” he said.
Ihonvbere explained that the bill would proceed to a public hearing, where residents, property owners, legal practitioners, estate agents and other interested stakeholders would have the opportunity to make contributions.
He urged his colleagues to support the proposal, stressing the responsibility of the legislature to protect Nigerians from exploitative practices.
“We are in a stage where we have a duty to protect Nigerians. It’s not against you to build your house. You can build as many houses as you want,” he said.
In his closing remarks, Deputy Speaker Kalu cited Section 16 of the Constitution, which provides for the promotion of citizens’ welfare and the provision of suitable and adequate shelter.
He argued that Nigeria operated a mixed economy in which government regulation was permissible in sectors connected to essential public needs, including housing.
“Not all sectors of the economy should be free and capitalist. Especially when it has to do with shelter, which is fundamental. So, some sectors should be regulated as well as controlled,” Kalu stated.
Following the debate, the House passed the bill for second reading.
Beyond the proposed restriction on advance-rent demands, the legislation seeks to establish the Federal Capital Territory Rent Regulation and Tenants’ Protection Authority.
The proposed authority would be responsible for overseeing rental transactions, investigating complaints, mediating disputes and enforcing compliance with the law.
It would also provide a mechanism for addressing unlawful rental practices, including intimidation, retaliatory conduct and unlawful eviction.
The legislation seeks to introduce clearer standards for estate agents and property managers, including measures to improve the identification and regulation of persons operating within the rental market.
The proposed law would cover residential and commercial tenancy arrangements within the FCT, although lawmakers have suggested that its scope and specific restrictions should be reviewed during subsequent legislative consideration.
The bill is expected to undergo further scrutiny through the committee process and public hearing before any final legislative decision is taken.
Its passage for second reading does not make the proposed 12-month advance-rent restriction or the associated penalties legally enforceable.
For the provisions to become law, the bill must complete the remaining legislative stages and obtain the necessary approvals, including presidential assent.
The debate has highlighted competing concerns over tenants’ protection, landlords’ property rights, freedom of contract, housing investment and the constitutional scope of rent regulation.
While supporters believe that restricting compulsory advance payments would ease the financial burden on residents, opponents have urged lawmakers to ensure that the proposal does not discourage investment or impose unnecessary restrictions on legitimate commercial arrangements.
With the bill advancing beyond second reading, attention will now turn to the committee stage and public hearing, where its provisions on advance-rent payments, agency fees, tenant protection, regulatory oversight and penalties are expected to receive further consideration.
.. “This Legislation Is Not Intended To Undermine Property Rights” — Reps Pass Bill To Limit FCT Advance Rent To 12 Months … NewsNGR.
